Another argument for God.

[Cinjin]

My dear MysticKnight. You do realize that most of us here are men and women of reason and logic.
I'll keep this very very simple in order so that you grasp why presentation of this sort of "evidence" is a waste of your time.

1. The brain is very complex.

This is the only bullet point that could arguably be considered correct. I will concede that this is common knowledge at this point in history and that sources are not required.

2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.

A rather general statement that can be shown to be incorrect. Although we may not understand 100% of the human mind, we do currently understand the brain's functions and even what parts of the brain control what parts of the body and what effects medicine, surgery and psycho therapy have on it. There is actually much we understand about the brain.

3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness,  then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.

This is your own assertion. It supports only your agenda. Who are you to say that humans can't understand that morality does or does not come from the mind?
Everything that comes out of our heads and hearts would logically come from the mind. ie. No brain - no thoughts. 

4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.

Why not? Again, this is merely your own unsubstantiated assertion. You don't KNOW where your god lives yet you feel justified in belief. Yet here you are telling others what they can or cannot feel justified in believing.

5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.

This statement makes no sense and builds it's conclusion off of a fallacy made in point #4.

6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.

Again, your own personal assertion. Where are your sources and your research to back up your claims?
Even your own god said "your righteousness is as filthy rags" ... sounds like an illusion to me.

7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.

Here we go again. A statement that reaches a conclusion by use of a fallacy made earlier in the bullet points.

8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.

This is where your points digress into the absurd (if not sooner). This is the bullet point of a preacher on a soapbox. There is literally nothing of evidence or reason in this statement.

9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.

Points 9 and 10 are both conclusions drawn to by your own biased self-aggrandized assertions. They mean nothing.
They both use the fallacies you yourself decided were truths with no regard for evidence or research. How can you possibly expect this sort of thread to have an effect on any one with half an intelligence?


Have a pleasant evening.
Cinjin